About Me

Friday, August 12, 2011

After 150 days of bombing, NATO has razed numerous facilities while failing to achieve any convincing military results. This is largely due to its lack of strategic forethinking. In Libya, NATO assumed it could apply the same classic methods that were conceived for different settings. It is now stuck in a quandary. The greatest military alliance in history, which was initially created to confront the USSR and was then slated to become the world’s policeman, has fallen woefully short of its recycling goals.

Both military victory and defeat are measured against the pre-established aims of the war. In the case of its intervention in Libya, NATO’s aims under a U.N. mandate were to protect civilians and, equally official although outside of the mandate, to change the country’s political regime.

After nearly 150 days of war, NATO did not succeed in shaking Libya’s institutions. Considering the disparity of opposing forces, military defeat is the inescapable conclusion and the adopted strategy should be called into question.

The Alliance wrongly estimated that the tribes from the East and South of the country, which were hostile to Muammar Gaddafi, could easily take Tripoli as long as they could count on aerial support. As it turned out, these tribes perceived the bombing as a foreign aggression and rallied the "Brother Leader" to repel the "crusader" invasion of Libya.

Informative article published here (Editor: Have you wondered why we haven't heard much from Libya lately on the mainstream media?)